| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
On September 26 2015 01:50 Plansix wrote: I don't know why you felt the need to bring a specific person into that example. I don't see the harm, but feel free to point out why you feel it was wrong of my to use any specific person and I may change my mind about it and edit my post. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 26 2015 01:54 dabom88 wrote: I don't see the harm, but feel free to point out why you feel it was wrong of my to use any specific person and I may change my mind about it and edit my post. Because the example is misgendering a trangender person, which transgerder folks really don't like. The example just as effective by just saying a "transgender-woman" and has none of the pitfalls of using a specific person. | ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
On September 26 2015 01:56 Plansix wrote: Because the example is misgendering a trangender person, which transgerder folks really don't like. The example just as effective by just saying a "transgender-woman" and has none of the pitfalls of using a specific person. Alright, sure I'll buy that. I'll just edit it to say a "transgender-woman". | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23413 Posts
On September 25 2015 11:44 Plansix wrote: I'm sure he will figure out something. He is a has an aura of being genuine, so that speaks to some people. Yeah it's a hell of a lot more than an aura, the guy has been telling people the same shit for decades. That he hasn't snatched some people throats out by now is a testament to his patience. The whole socialist conspiracy is pretty funny though. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21906 Posts
On September 26 2015 02:15 Adreme wrote: I kind of regret that Boehner is resigning and think a lot of people are being far to harsh on his job as speaker. I disagreed with him on most things but he was still one of the only people actually trying to actually get things done despite a majority of his caucus just wanted to basically do things that would tank the american economy and did not really care that it would do that. I am hoping someone else can step up and try to keep the crazy parts of that caucus in line. He did the best he could trying to be a voice of reason but he had to many opponents in the Tea Party to manage. I assume he got out now because he was either going to be voted out anyway or because he wanted nothing to do with another shutdown. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43151 Posts
On September 26 2015 02:26 oneofthem wrote: pretty sure the constantine donation is faked so this catholic pope is more like a west vs east rome situation if you really want to get into the peter thing. I explained that it was forged in one of my earlier posts. It doesn't matter though, rightly or wrongly the Catholics have the legitimacy of history and tradition on their side. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the western biased tradition would obviously have catholic as the tradition, but it wasn't the only way that tradition could have developed. for example, if the bishop of rome was merely understood as a regional ruler rather than ruler of all churches then things would turn out differently. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 26 2015 02:15 Adreme wrote: I kind of regret that Boehner is resigning and think a lot of people are being far to harsh on his job as speaker. I disagreed with him on most things but he was still one of the only people actually trying to actually get things done despite a majority of his caucus just wanted to basically do things that would tank the american economy and did not really care that it would do that. I am hoping someone else can step up and try to keep the crazy parts of that caucus in line. I don't feel sorry for him. He should have seen this coming when the GOP decided to ride the Tea Party wave as hard as it could in 2008. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Conservatives at the Values Voter Summit cheered the coming end of House Speaker John Boehner’s reign, taking credit for the downfall of a man reviled by the right as too liberal to lead. "Yesterday, John Boehner was Speaker of the House. Y'all come to town, and somehow that changes!" shouted Sen. Ted Cruz, one of the most far-right Republicans in Congress and a regular irritant to leadership. “My only request is, can you come more often?" Cruz wasn’t the only one winning applause by heralding Boehner’s exit. Marco Rubio cut into his prepared remarks to break the news of Boehner’s plan to resign, and the crowd roared. The Florida senator and rising 2016 presidential contender, who claims conservative credentials but also an ability to reach more mainstream Republicans, said he wasn’t “here to bash” Boehner or “anyone” but added “the time has come to turn the page and allow a new generation of leaders.” The rift between conservative and more mainstream Republicans has been playing out for more than four years in Congress and has in no small part driven strategies employed by the 2016 presidential contenders. Boehner's decision to leave Congress gave conservative activists an opportunity to take credit for shifting the GOP further to the right -- and it could prove a useful talking point on the trail for the most conservative candidates, such as Cruz. "What a great day for America," said conservative political activist David Bossie, president of Citizens United. He predicted there would be “new conservative leadership that will bring a conservative agenda" to the House of Represenatatives. Source | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On September 26 2015 02:35 TheTenthDoc wrote: I don't feel sorry for him. He should have seen this coming when the GOP decided to ride the Tea Party wave as hard as it could in 2008. He probably felt they were a lot like the wave of 1994 where they were loud and obnoxious and not above sometimes shooting themselves in the foot but in the end didnt neglect basic government responsibilities for there own political ends. However his wave was nothing like that and was largely lead by a bunch of know nothings who basically ignored anyone who didnt tell them exactly what they wanted to hear and could not accept that driving us over these cliffs would have irreparable consequences because they didnt want to believe it so they listend to the echo chamber that told them that it would not. Denial of facts or to be more specific only listening to people who tell you what you want to hear and only believing them while never listening to people who challenge your worldview is a pretty big problem with the typical voter but is a massive problem if you are a member of congress and being properly informed is 100% of your job. In short there is no way Boehner could have understood the level of insanity that the Tea Party would bring. He probably thought it was mostly bluster since he lived thru something similar before. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Jeb Bush told a South Carolina crowd Thursday that Democrats play to African-American voters by offering "free stuff," a similar comment to a contentious one that Mitt Romney made in the days after his 2012 loss to President Barack Obama. Bush, analyzing Republicans' chances with black voters, said that his party needs to make a better case to the traditionally Democratic voting bloc. "Our message is one of hope and aspiration. It isn't one of division and 'Get in line and we'll take care of you with free stuff,'" Bush said Thursday at an event in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. It was similar to a Romney comment three years ago, in the days after his 2012 loss, where the former Massachusetts governor blamed the outcome, on a call with donors, on Obama's "gifts" for minority voters. "What the president, president's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote," Romney said at the time, according to audio obtained by ABC News. Other Republicans quickly denounced Romney's comments and party leaders, as part of their assessment of how to win in 2016, determined that they needed to do a better job reaching out to minorities. A Bush spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment Friday, but declined to address the "free stuff" phrase directly in a reply to The New York Times. Source | ||
|
KwarK
United States43151 Posts
On September 26 2015 03:04 zlefin wrote: I wonder what sort of voting schemes and electoral systems, in practice, cut down on the crazy foolish. In theory I'd suspect ones like approval voting that favor bland middle of the road candidates would, but I don't have good info on if they'd do that in practice. The current system does once we hit 2016 and both sides start looking for the middle ground. The current situation is shortsighted. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 26 2015 03:04 zlefin wrote: I wonder what sort of voting schemes and electoral systems, in practice, cut down on the crazy foolish. In theory I'd suspect ones like approval voting that favor bland middle of the road candidates would, but I don't have good info on if they'd do that in practice. We used to have normal candidates that respected government and the process of government. You watch old videos of hearing from the 80s-90s its a very different place. Ted Kennedy, referred to as a liberal lion, was friends with a number of hard line conservatives. But the folks that tapped the Tea Party have put people in office that literally loath the process of governing and compromise. They would rather stomp their feet and do nothing over try to worth with the other side. And the people that elect them are folks that just didn't vote until the Republican party decided to ride that wave to retain control of government. This isn't the first them either. People forget that the Republicans didn't control either house of congress from 1952-1994. And in 1994 they tapped social conservatives to win both Houses. Once they stop feeling beholden to this group and start chasing some of the democrats votes, like blacks(majority used to vote republican before the civil rights movement), we will see more well rounded candidates. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On September 26 2015 03:09 KwarK wrote: The current system does once we hit 2016 and both sides start looking for the middle ground. The current situation is shortsighted. I mean the house is basically rigged in a way that they dont need to find middle ground and need to just focus on appeasing there based because the only way most of these sits flip is if a republican gets flanked from his right. That is also more of a symptom of how wrong gerrymandering is and why allowing districts to be drawn by anyone but a neutral arbiter eventually leads to something like this. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21906 Posts
On September 26 2015 03:04 zlefin wrote: I wonder what sort of voting schemes and electoral systems, in practice, cut down on the crazy foolish. In theory I'd suspect ones like approval voting that favor bland middle of the road candidates would, but I don't have good info on if they'd do that in practice. Looking at my own country the first thing that comes to mind is changing from districts to bigger regions. Senators for state X? everyone in the state can vote for any party. Number of votes divided by number of available seats = the votes you need for a seat, add fair system for remainders. By stopping the ability to isolate voter demographics you stop both gerrymandering and you dilute the crazies (assuming there are more sane then crazy people in a state). The downside is that you risk small groups within a state not having a representative because they cant accumulate enough votes for a single seat. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 26 2015 03:17 Gorsameth wrote: Looking at my own country the first thing that comes to mind is changing from districts to bigger regions. Senators for state X? everyone in the state can vote for any party. Number of votes divided by number of available seats = the votes you need for a seat, add fair system for remainders. By stopping the ability to isolate voter demographics you stop both gerrymandering and you dilute the crazies (assuming there are more sane then crazy people in a state). The downside is that you risk small groups within a state not having a representative because they cant accumulate enough votes for a single seat. A lot of the gerrymandering didn't take effect or was thrown out by Courts. It worked for a hot minute, but it was so transparent that none of it held up by the court. They do need to update that system, but that will take a more reasonable congress. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On September 26 2015 02:58 Adreme wrote: He probably felt they were a lot like the wave of 1994 where they were loud and obnoxious and not above sometimes shooting themselves in the foot but in the end didnt neglect basic government responsibilities for there own political ends. However his wave was nothing like that and was largely lead by a bunch of know nothings who basically ignored anyone who didnt tell them exactly what they wanted to hear and could not accept that driving us over these cliffs would have irreparable consequences because they didnt want to believe it so they listend to the echo chamber that told them that it would not. Denial of facts or to be more specific only listening to people who tell you what you want to hear and only believing them while never listening to people who challenge your worldview is a pretty big problem with the typical voter but is a massive problem if you are a member of congress and being properly informed is 100% of your job. In short there is no way Boehner could have understood the level of insanity that the Tea Party would bring. He probably thought it was mostly bluster since he lived thru something similar before. I think you all are giving Boehner way too much credit. He never had a coherent strategy, nor did he ever seem to understand the actual situation in the House of Representatives. First, he appears to have desired to have his reign as Speaker be an "establishment" style. So he wanted to fill bills with pork, and grow the budget at a moderate rate, slower than perhaps Democrats would like, and hold the line on tax cuts. This was doomed to failure because this plan has less than 100 votes in the House. He might have assumed he would get votes for these plans from centrist Democrats, but he should have recognized that almost none exist in the House. Had he recognized this (Im not sure he has yet) he would realize that he either needed to pursue a fiscally conservative path and create a coalition in his own party, or a liberal path and take his 100 Big Government Republicans and form a coalition with the Democrats. Instead what he did was take the route of attempting to build a coalition within the Republicans without ever having a strategy to implement the goals of that coalition. He reminds me a lot of the French/British generals early in WWI who did not understand the power of artillery and machine guns. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
|
|
|
EPT
